New system build. Goal: windows vista exp index of 5.9

[dustinlandi]

I'm in the market to upgrade my pc. I want the 680i chipset, 6600 core2duo, a nvidia 8800gts, 2 gigs of ddr 4-4-4-12 timing, and a 3g sata drive. does anyone have this configuration with vista? I need to know if you can acheve a 5.9 index with this and if not, what i would need to add to get it. Please dont respond with why you think the index doesnt matter. It matters to me as a person who would find it annoying to see anythign less.. most of you can understand

 

[skyguy]

I don't have that exact setup, but I have some similar components, and equivalent (or better) with overclocking. I have also seen other scores with similar components.

Short answer to your question: No.

Longer answer: You will get 5.9 in certain areas of the scoring, but definitely not all. And your overall score is indicative and reflective of your lowest score....the "weakest link" in your system. So unless ALL of your parts are very high end, you won't score an overall 5.9. Your graphics card will, your memory might, your CPU will get close-ish, so hard drive won't for sure.

The specs you mention are better than the vast majority of systems out there, and will score you just fine for Vista, but definitely not a 5.9 overall. To do that you'll need to highly overclock your CPU, get Raptors in RAID 0, and 8800GTX, and so forth. Why spend so much money for a few percentage points in Vista, which has no bearing on real world applications? It's a synthetic scoring system for newbies that can point to a game and say, "My system can handle it". If you have THAT much money to burn, I'll give you my PayPal and you can send some extra my way

Build what you need, not what bogus score to achieve.

 

[dustinlandi]

well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?

 

[zenmaster]

If your 6800gt gives you a 5.9, then something is broke in their rating system.

There is no way a Video card that does not support DirectX10 can be considered as being able to provide the best possible experience.

Now, we all know that DirectX10 is still really pie in the sky today since no games use it and the few cards that support it have major driver issues.

If nothing else, this reveals how silly the rating system is.

 

[chunkymonster]

I'm in the market to upgrade my pc. I want the 680i chipset, 6600 core2duo, a nvidia 8800gts, 2 gigs of ddr 4-4-4-12 timing, and a 3g sata drive. does anyone have this configuration with vista? I need to know if you can acheve a 5.9 index with this and if not, what i would need to add to get it. Please dont respond with why you think the index doesnt matter. It matters to me as a person who would find it annoying to see anythign less.. most of you can understand

With a DX10 compatible gpu and the specs listed, I'm sure it will run Vista just fine.

What sickens me though is that we are now forced to using a proprietary M$ bull$hit-o-meter to determine if our machines are "good" enough to run a bloated, over priced operating system. What a crock of $hit!

It's for reasons like this that I keep adding more functionality and projects to my Ubuntu install. And, just another reason to bootleg M$ products, not that I condone that kind of thing. :roll: :lol:

 

[dustinlandi]

You dont need a direct x 10 card to run windows. The vista xp index is designed for the "windows experience" not the game exp. I am willing to bet that th geforce 4 5900 would give you a score of 5.9. These cards are over kill for running areo. BTW.. what games are dx 10 anyway right now

 

[djmerlin]

Spend more money, feeeeed the machine! I bet once you have spent 3 grand building the killer rig to get the 5.9 score MS will announce that there was a bug in the rating system and issue the 'you fools patch' promptly.

That, or the onboard sound solution you skimped on is holding you at 5.8 :lol:

M

 

[jerrardo]

I found a page that explains the Vista score and here is the most useful info...

Computing each sub-score

Each sub score in the index was created to measure the performance of a critical piece of hardware. The scores are calculated by measuring one or more relevant performance attributes, and then converting the values (normalizing) to a score between 1.0 and 5.9.

In this section you can read what is tested for each sub-score.

The CPU Score

The CPU score was created to measure the processor performance when tasked with common Windows usage activities. The processor is assessed on the following items:

1. Compression and decompression using the LZW compression algorithm.

2. Compression and decompression using the Windows Vista compression algorithm used for hibernation files, ReadyBoost and other features.

3. Encryption and decryption assessment

4. Computing hashes

5. Encoding of video

The results are normalized and weight averaged in order to arrive at the final CPU sub‑score.
The Memory Score

The memory score measures the bandwidth of moving data into and out of memory in mega bytes per second. The higher the bandwidth, the better the memory.

Not having enough memory is a limiting factor on performance. As a result, the amount of memory in the system constrains the score value. The amount of system memory is determined by the overall system memory minus any memory reserved for graphics (if any).

The amount of memory limits are:

Amount of memory


Highest possible score

Less than 256 MB


1.0

Less than 500 MB


2.0

512 MB or less


2.9

Less than 704 MB


3.5

Less than 960 MB


3.9

Less than 1.5 GB


4.5
The Graphics Score

This score is intended to reflect how a system will run Aero (desktop composition) and playback Windows Media Video. It measures video memory bandwidth (in mega bytes per second) and converts it to a score between 1.0 and 5.9.

If the system does not support DirectX 9 (DX9) graphics, than the system receives a graphics score of 1.0 regardless of driver type. If the system supports DX9, but does not have a WDDM Driver (Windows Vista Display Driver Model) than the system can receive a graphics score of 1.9 at the most.
The Gaming Score

The gaming score measures the frames per second the graphics card can handle for various textures.

Additional notes:

· If the graphics card does not support D3D 9 then it receives a Gaming score of 1.0.

· If D3D 9 is supported, the card is DX9 capable and has a WDDM driver, it will score at least 2.0.

· If the score is greater than or equal to 5.0 and the graphics sub-system does not support Pixel Shader 3.0 then the score is limited to 4.9
The Disk Score

The disk score measures disk bandwidth (in mega bytes per second). The conversion to an index number is set up in a way that all modern disks will score at least 2.0.

The rest is here...

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/458117.aspx

 

[dustinlandi]

I'm in the market to upgrade my pc. I want the 680i chipset, 6600 core2duo, a nvidia 8800gts, 2 gigs of ddr 4-4-4-12 timing, and a 3g sata drive. does anyone have this configuration with vista? I need to know if you can acheve a 5.9 index with this and if not, what i would need to add to get it. Please dont respond with why you think the index doesnt matter. It matters to me as a person who would find it annoying to see anythign less.. most of you can understand

With a DX10 compatible gpu and the specs listed, I'm sure it will run Vista just fine.

What sickens me though is that we are now forced to using a proprietary M$ bull$hit-o-meter to determine if our machines are "good" enough to run a bloated, over priced operating system. What a crock of $hit!

It's for reasons like this that I keep adding more functionality and projects to my Ubuntu install. And, just another reason to bootleg M$ products, not that I condone that kind of thing. :roll: :lol:


I can actually run vista fine on my machine now my score is a 4.9 and i have no problems at all.. its just I want a new computer and if i get one might as well be the best.


Well i dont want to argue the benifits f linux over windows right now.. thats a looong and tired discussion. But I do actually like this new rating system. It provides every day users a standard and will help all of us pc repair people to explain why there computer is horrible... but to the point.. id like someone who has this config to let us know if it gets to 5.9 or not.

 

[djmerlin]

I bet no one gets 5.9

 

[ravenxero]

So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...

 

[djgandy]

well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?

I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?

 

[djmerlin]

in fact, if ANYONE can get a score of 5.9 I will buy them a drink.

Surely thats an incentive to spend loads of cash and get the spouse angry?

M

 

[dustinlandi]

well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?

I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?


Ok, well.. I dont have time to look it up but if you go to newegg and compare a sata-300 drive with a raptor the proff is in the pudding, faster transfer, faster seek, better handling of temp, and its quiter at a better price. Please if im wrong let me know and tell me what drive is faster.. i know the raptor is 10k rpm.. but that doesnt matter if the transfer speed is slow.. its like... hurry up and wait.

 

[dustinlandi]

IF you really have a plethora of money laying around, get a few (4+) UW-SCSI 15K rpm HDs, a great SCSI card, with 128Mb or 256MB of built-in cache and you're all set to get a 5.9 on disk performance.


Keep in mind that the score calculation is bound to be changed as machines improve. It wouldn't make any sense if, 4 years from now, most machines be able to easily score 5.9 with the then existing hardware (4 Gb RAM of DDR3, 8-16 cores, etc). So MS might as well adapt the normalization method in order to prevent both a 8 core and a 2-core processor to score the same result.

I am willing to bet that a top of the line machine at 5.9 rating would get a rating jump once they make a higher score.. Its just that the top right now is 5.9.. what if you had a core 2 quad and 4 sli card running 8 gigs etc etc... do you really think that once the ratings get bumped its going to stop at 5.9?

 

[jerrardo]

According to http://www.shareyourscore.com/ there may be 7 people looking for you.

 

[djgandy]

well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?

I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?


Ok, well.. I dont have time to look it up but if you go to newegg and compare a sata-300 drive with a raptor the proff is in the pudding, faster transfer, faster seek, better handling of temp, and its quiter at a better price. Please if im wrong let me know and tell me what drive is faster.. i know the raptor is 10k rpm.. but that doesnt matter if the transfer speed is slow.. its like... hurry up and wait.

What?

Interface speed and transfer speed are two different things..
Raptors are much faster at seeking and transfers. I personally wouldn't but them, but they are for sure faster.

Please backup your statements!!

 

[dustinlandi]

So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...

I wonder why your mem score is so. you have 4 gigs.. whats the mem timing? now thats kinda strange

 

[lp231]

The performance index rating in Vista isn't for you to brag on how
powerful your machine is. Instead of upgrading blindly it's shows
you want exact component you need to upgrade so that
you can have the the best Vista experience and a bit
of a score boost.

 

[lp231]

So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...

I wonder why your mem score is so. you have 4 gigs.. whats the mem timing? now thats kinda strange

Vista's performance rating is mysterious, isn't it?
I've got 3GB (2X1GB and 2X512mb) and it
gave me a score of 5.3 (DDR 2 667MHz no fancy smancy timing crap,
nor heatsink, you know those vaule types.)

 

[dustinlandi]

The performance index rating in Vista isn't for you to brag on how
powerful your machine is. Instead of upgrading blindly it's shows
you want exact component you need to upgrade so that
you can have the the best Vista experience and a bit
of a score boost.

thank you.. kind of. This is the point im trying to make and i think it does help.. but for me im using it for braging.. and to have a good pc

 

[razortonguekiss]

vistas scorin system is on crack.

theres an article on tomshardware or slashdot recently; they had a quad core intel wit 2-4 gigs of ram and a 1950XT I believe and it didn't get 5.9.

so basically dun be expectin a 5.9 in eveythin because

a) scorin is skewed
b) you need crazy ass hardware to do it, doubt its even possible

 

[dustinlandi]

vistas scorin system is on crack.

theres an article on tomshardware or slashdot recently; they had a quad core intel wit 2-4 gigs of ram and a 1950XT I believe and it didn't get 5.9.

so basically dun be expectin a 5.9 in eveythin because

a) scorin is skewed
b) you need crazy ass hardware to do it, doubt its even possible

yes, i believe the computer you saw was on http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/03/01/vista_offers_nothing_to_gamers/
i couldnt believe it either

 

[djmerlin]

b) you need crazy ass hardware to do it, doubt its even possible

...and therein lies the rub

M

 

[dustinlandi]

well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?

I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?


Ok, well.. I dont have time to look it up but if you go to newegg and compare a sata-300 drive with a raptor the proff is in the pudding, faster transfer, faster seek, better handling of temp, and its quiter at a better price. Please if im wrong let me know and tell me what drive is faster.. i know the raptor is 10k rpm.. but that doesnt matter if the transfer speed is slow.. its like... hurry up and wait.

What?

Interface speed and transfer speed are two different things..
Raptors are much faster at seeking and transfers. I personally wouldn't but them, but they are for sure faster.

Please backup your statements!!

sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2268595&Sku=TSD-320AS



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2368641&CatId=2457

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up